Disputed Statements

Chapter 16, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 16 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 17, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 17 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 18, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 18 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 19, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Point in Dispute

Currently States Whether the attack on benevolence and rightness in this chapter is original to the text

The received text tells the reader to cut off benevolence and discard rightness, the central pair of Confucian virtues, and that line is the sharpest anti-Confucian statement in the book. The Guodian bamboo slips of around 300 BCE, the earliest witnesses to this chapter, put different terms in that position, so that the criticism falls on artifice and deceit instead. One position holds the Guodian reading to be earlier, which would make the polemic a later sharpening. Another treats the Guodian text as a local or softened version. Neither is established.

Source Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 19, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 19 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 2, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 2 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 20, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 20 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 21, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 21 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 22, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 22 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 23, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 23 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 24, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 24 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 25, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 25 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 26, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 26 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 27, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 27 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 28, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 28 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 29, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 29 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 3, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 3 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 30, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 30 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 31, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 31 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 32, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 32 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1